Caseck Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Just been thinking about my idea of a tank destroyer, fixed gun with very small arc on the front, 90mm or bigger, fast with a low profile, well sloped front armor and an efficient autoloader feeding a semi-fixed gun for a very high rate of fire. This contrasts quite extremely with the "Apollo" which has weak armour and an MBT sized main gun, with identical rate of fire. Just like tank, but not as good as a tank... I just find it interesting because as it stands now, in the role of "Tank Destroyer" the Apollo is very close in description to the American M10 Wolverine or M18 Hellcat in WWII. Anyone who doesn't know the history of the American Tank Destroyer in WWII is missing out on a good example of failed doctrine. Much like the Battlecruiser concept on the high seas, the Tank Destroyers lacked the protection to stand up to MBTs in a fight. Their role was intended to allow them to manuever into the battlefield and ambush oncoming tanks. (Thank you GEN Patton.) Interestingly, TD Battalions had air assets integrated with them. But never achieved the mass on the battlefield they were intended to have according to doctrine. Operationally, it turned out to be nearly impossible to have a tank destroyer battalion deployed and ready in advance to engage an oncoming German Panzer unit. No tank destroyers battalions survived the end of the war, all being disbanded by 1946. Was it the tank destroyer which caused the doctrine to fail, or the doctrine which failed the tank destroyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caseck Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 Really, why even have a 90mm gun, when for the savings of dropping the turret, and the associated weight, you could have a fixed 120mm with a higher rate of fire and still retain excellent protection on the front arc. I would call it a "Prowler". (Thankyou Damon Syle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caseck Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 A final note, design wise, you not only save a ton of weight [ha,ha,ha], but also cost and complexity by dropping the turret. The only thing you may trade off, is internal volume (read ammunition.) But to know that for sure you've gotta' calculate the volume of the chassis. With a slightly larger chassis with no turret, you wouldn't even lose much there. THAT is a tank destroyer! From the front I am confident that a "Prowler" WILL beat a "Thor". Low profile, high speed, semi-fixed mount. It would make sense to me, based on the power consumption of a Hover Chassis, that postulated Hover Tank-Destroyers would be projectile, and tracked variants would have the high wattage pulse-laser, when it becomes available. But I'm not sure what kind of trade-offs you folks make in design. It appears the "Hurricane" trades off a lot of weight for it's firepower at the expense of armour. But the Plasma-Cannon really acts like a 203mm low velocity gun. Don't know if it even has a power-consumption component, but I would expect it would. If you incorporated fuel consumption in this game, I would expect the "Hurricane" to have the worst range/endurance of all the vehicles. [ November 21, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Actually, I don't know how much you read the Mod forum, but Posel and myself are working on an idea like that. Hopefully we'll have something to show soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caseck Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Working on an idea... Like what specifically? MOD forums? Hmmmn... I'll look into that... [ November 21, 2006, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I think DT's "no lines" battles and easy spotting makes TDs much less useful. But a TD would still be cool. Were I making one I'd probably base it off the Hertzer, in that it'd emphasize a low-profile. Is the mod mentioned above the "Ramses"? That struck me as being more like a Stug on steriods than a dedicated TD, especially given it's intended use against ion defenses. An "assault gun." Not that there's anything wrong with being "Stuggy". The Ramses sounds great. No MG is fun. Hmm... can the Paladins really transport infantry? I keep forgetting to check. If so then something like a towed AT-gun unit should be possible to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts